Author
Topic: Evidence for God (Read 3279 times)

Mathematics is circular reasoning otherwise no QED. Physics is partly based on mathematics. Therefore Physics is partly based on circular reasoning.

Physics isn't the results, if it is science. Science is a technique. The physics results says that masses attract each other at a distance (though a disturbance in that attraction can't propagate faster than a light beam). The physics results also says that space-time are co-dependent, and that this continuum is warped by the presence of mass. So is Newton right or Einstein right? They have equations that are useful under some circumstances. For ordinary stuff Newton is easier, so we use Newton. For very special stuff Newton has a less useful equation, so we use Einstein's stuff. And we don't worry which is true, Newton or Einstein. As long as you have a good enough equation for what you are trying to do, it doesn't matter where it comes from. This is how you discard Plato in favor of pragmatism.

God Not Found"Never criticize someone unless you've walked a mile in his shoes. Then when you criticize him at least you'll be a mile away - and you'll have his shoes."Ray Magliozzi"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted at all."

Newtons inverse square law of gravity works for objects moving no faster than ten per cent of light speed. Beyond this and General Relativity has to be used instead. The notion of time and space as eternal and absolute was disproved by Einstein who showed that they were not separate dimensions but interconnected and also that mass affected gravity

This thread is for the purpose of addressing some of the questions typically raised by atheists: Who or what is God? What demonstrable evidence can be presented for the existence of God? If God exists, why doesn't he prove it?

The Bible is a very good place to provide a good answer. In fact, one Bible verse covers it very well. In 21st century English, the passage reads...

"...what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship,..." (Romans 1:19, 20).

Oh, good, then the proof should be quickly forthcoming since it is clearly evident among us.

This kind of statement ignores that there are different kinds of 'proof'.

"Can you prove that there is a God?" asked Prof Lennox. "In the mathematical sense no, but proving anything is very difficult. The word proof has two meanings. There's the rigorous meaning in maths that is very difficult to do and rare. But then there's the other meaning – beyond reasonable doubt".

Many, perhaps most, atheists would accept as proof of the existence of God only evidence they can see, feel, touch and take apart and reassemble in a laboratory setting. And, of course, that lab would have to be only where they would have unfettered access.

which should be no problem since "perception plays a very important part" in seeing what is "clearly evident around" us

Could you rightly expect a grasshopper to fully explain a human being or human accomplishments like the Hubble space telescope? Or would you be humble enough to learn grasshopper speech and befriend them? Sounds foolish, correct? That is the dilemma.

Further on this line of thought is the difference between humans and chimpanzees is about one percent of DNA. On that scale what would a creature be like who was one percent greater than humans in their DNA?

"one percent greater than humans in their DNA?" WTF does that mean? Has 1% more DNA? No, that can't be it.

If their intellect would follow the same scale, could we ever hope to understand them? Much less be on par with them? And yet God is orders of magnitude greater than chimpanzees or grasshopper-like humans.

And here is one item we all see without any understanding. Something so basic it has no record anywhere in the Bible as having been created. And that even though many think it is listed among the creations attributed to God. And what is that? LIFE.

The Bible tells us this at Psalm 36:9 simply that the 'source of life is God'. Much has been hypothesized about life. Some have speculated about life having a chemical nature. Some have claimed that by assembling certain molecules together they have created life. But when pressed, they admit they can not and did not create life. It cannot be disassembled and reassembled. Some have speculated that life is a form of energy as yet not understood.

And there is God. If we go back to Romans 1:20 we see it speaks about the creation as giving us insight into God. So look at the creation.

Focus on Isaiah 40:25, 26. "To whom can you liken me to make me his equal?” says the Holy One.

26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things?It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name.Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing."

Science also tells us eventually the universe itself will run down. Over 3000 years ago the Psalmist spoke of an immense maintenance project needed to fix the universe itself. Read for yourself Psalm 102:25-27. Makes for very interesting reading.

The earth has foundations? It's been around since the beginning? The heavens ware out like old clothing and get replaced? Or maybe it's poetry not an attempt at scientific foresight

Oh. And DNA; Look at Psalm 139:16. "Your eyes even saw me as an embryo; All its parts were written in your book Regarding the days when they were formed, Before any of them existed.' Written more than 3,000 years before we had amassed enough knowledge on our own to understand, how would you explain that passage?

How would I explain what? That ancient people had a basic understanding of human reproduction? How stupid do you think they were?

Although this logic is simple, many well-educated people find it to be powerful. For example, the late astronomer Allan Sandage once said regarding the universe: “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”

Bible writers had scientific knowledge that was beyond the understanding of their contemporaries. For example, in ancient times many peoples believed that the earth was supported by an animal, such as an elephant, a boar, or an ox. In contrast, the Bible says that God is “suspending the earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

I could have sworn you said the bible gives the earth a foundation and pillars?

The Bible answers many difficult questions, the type of questions that when not satisfactorily answered can lead a person to atheism. For example: If God is loving and all-powerful, why is there suffering and evil in the world? Why is Religion so often an influence for bad rather than for good? See Titus 1:6

What does bishop having only one wife and well behaved children have to do with anything?

So have I completely answered the questions posed? Probably not. However, at the same time, I hope I have made a good start and raised questions that honest, open-minded individuals will seek answers to.

You can ask me and I promise to try and answer your questions using reason, logic and the Bible. I like a good challenge.

Newtons inverse square law of gravity works for objects moving no faster than ten per cent of light speed. Beyond this and General Relativity has to be used instead. The notion of time and space as eternal and absolute was disproved by Einstein who showed that they were not separate dimensions but interconnected and also that mass affected gravity

That is the conventional view of philosophy of science .. in practice engineers stick with Newton, because in less than 1% of practical situations (GPS satellites being one exception) relativity theory doesn't matter. The two views, Newton and Einstein ... are radically different from the POV of Plato's Forms (aka so called objective reality) and is much harder to work with. In that POV, only one can be right, and people keep investigating to find a better technical version. Similarly quantum mechanics is incompatible with General Relativity, and therefore since General Relativity is necessary to make Special Relativity consistent ... people keep trying to find something (like superstrings) beyond conventional Quantum Field Theory, but are unsuccessful so far. Pragmatic quantum mechanics do what engineers do, they simply ignore gravity for almost all calculations. The idea that Quantum Field Theory is internally inconsistent, isn't of practical concern (just as Relativity in general isn't of practical concern to engineers). The question in philosophy of science, whether reality is rational or even objective ... is an open question, not a closed question, or there would be no philosophy involved. Only philosophers, and ambitious "theory of everything" thinkers care.

If one defines reality as all that exists then it has to be objective by definition because it is not dependent upon subjective interpretation Only if reality could be significantly manipulated by our interaction with it could it be said not to be objective. But even were that true asfar as is known the majority of the observable universe has been devoid of life for all time. And so it is truly objective in the purest sense

If one defines reality as all that exists then it has to be objective by definition because it is not dependent upon subjective interpretation Only if reality could be significantly manipulated by our interaction with it could it be said not to be objective. But even were that true asfar as is known the majority of the observable universe has been devoid of life for all time. And so it is truly objective in the purest sense

Perhaps ... though the idea of objective reality starts with the philosophy of Thales and Pythagoras and extends to Plato and beyond ... these are simply ancient Greek ideas, that are currently popular. Naturalism and rationalism are originally Greek, though many non-Greeks have adopted them since. And in part, this was driven by early mathematics and astronomy. Physics and chemistry didn't exist in early Greek times. And biology only got started under Aristotle. Pretty much all non-humanistic thought was limited to an elite until modern times.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof. At best, it suggests that enough evidence has been presented that it surpasses the threshold of reasonable doubt. This measurement is used in a court of law, and evidence has shown over and over again that "beyond reasonable doubt" is highly subjective, morally flawed, and renders verdicts that terrorize the innocent.

Reasonable doubt has no meaning as proof. It was never intended to be proof, and that should be self evident in the phrase itself. What is beyond reasonable doubt for a skeptic is a much higher threshold than that set by theists and cult members who consider thought experiments about hypothetical talking grasshoppers as evidence. From your nonsense above:

Start with Isaiah's poetic sounding gibberish and suggest some mysterious but thought provoking metaphor lies at the heart of it. "Heaven is filled with things like grasshoppers." And that's not even the dumbest claim made by the Bible. As if we should humble ourselves to understand the clicking noises of grasshoppers actually explain the truths of the universe. I've got news for you. Grasshoppers aren't that smart.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I don't understand. The greater truth of the grasshopper gibberish is lost on the atheist. But if you want to make a plea for beyond reasonable doubt, don't fucking start with talking grasshoppers. Absurd blather is not evidence. It's theist nonsense, and it does not meet any reasonable criteria for being beyond doubt.

That quote mentioned the term "circle of the earth". Hmmm... the circle of the earth, sounds like:

Every con-artist has an excuse to coveniently get the missing person out of the room. Looks like this is one of the excuses used by Bible practitioners:

" for a lowly human being to describe in human terms a being vastly more complex with knowledge and the ability to make and use forces beyond our comprehension, is at best an exercize in futility"

This same statement shows the OP contradicting his opening statement that he is going to tell us who god is.

"The Bible provides compelling evidence that God is real" a statement that might mean something, but only if the OP can provide compelling evidence of the truth of the Bible

That is funny, isn't it? How Christians are all experts on what God is like, what's important to him, what his attributes are. But as soon as someone criticizes their god, he suddenly becomes unknowable.

That is funny, isn't it? How Christians are all experts on what God is like, what's important to him, what his attributes are. But as soon as someone criticizes their god, he suddenly becomes unknowable.

like the hidden 4th step in the Kalam Cosmological argument:1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause;2) The universe began to exist;3) The universe has a cause.4) ???5) It's a sin to eat bacon or be gay or . . .

Logged

"Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles; and so we have spectacles. Legs were visibly instituted to be breeched, and we have breeches" Voltaire�s Candide

Mathematics is circular reasoning otherwise no QED. Physics is partly based on mathematics. Therefore Physics is partly based on circular reasoning.

Physics isn't the results, if it is science. Science is a technique. The physics results says that masses attract each other at a distance (though a disturbance in that attraction can't propagate faster than a light beam). The physics results also says that space-time are co-dependent, and that this continuum is warped by the presence of mass. So is Newton right or Einstein right? They have equations that are useful under some circumstances. For ordinary stuff Newton is easier, so we use Newton. For very special stuff Newton has a less useful equation, so we use Einstein's stuff. And we don't worry which is true, Newton or Einstein. As long as you have a good enough equation for what you are trying to do, it doesn't matter where it comes from. This is how you discard Plato in favor of pragmatism.